Taking almost any feat multiple times


Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells


Is there anything in the RAW stopping me from taking feats multiple times regardless of whether they are stated to be able to be taken multiple times?

I know some of them say you can take them multiple times or a certain number of times expressly. In the case of allowing us to take certain feats as many times as we can: if we haven't been prevented from taking any given feat again as many times as we functionally can by the RAW, then we can take any feat without a limiter on quantity as many times as we functionally can.

I'm genuinely uncertain as to whether this is a design decision so a clarification would be greatly appreciated, just a man trying to make a character.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Most feats, if taken multiple times would work, wouldn't benefit a charakter more than only taking it once.
The only one I could find with a quick look, that doesn't have the "you can take this feat multiple times"-language, was Toughness.

Are you having a specific feat in mind to take multiple times?

[Edit:] Fleet! Lacks the "multiple times"-line but should be possible to take more than once.


Unless explicitly stated, you can only take a feat once.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ediwir wrote:
Unless explicitly stated, you can only take a feat once.

Please cite.

As it stands, I see no RAW reason an elf can't take Nimble over and over...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Page 8:

Quote:

Special Any special qualities of the rule are explained in

this section. Usually the special section appears in a feat you can
select more than once, and explains what happens when you do.


Draco18s wrote:

Page 8:

Quote:

Special Any special qualities of the rule are explained in

this section. Usually the special section appears in a feat you can
select more than once, and explains what happens when you do.

By using the word "Usually" they've made it so that the literal interpretation is that it's not always the case that they've used the special sub-line to indicate a feat can be taken multiple times, nor have they expressly prevented the taking of any given feats multiple times. Thus, it is the case that this does not preclude one from taking any given feat multiple times


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is possible for a feat to have a "special" section without that section having the sentence "you may select this feat multiple times."* But as that phrase only appears in a special section, it is therefor not default.

*For example, archetypes:

Quote:

Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you

have gained two other feats from the _____ archetype.


Alright but my assertion at this point is that the phrase "you may select this feat multiple times." in the special section is made moot firstly by the fact that page 8 provides no express denial of ability (simply provides an example in which the rules text would explicitly state the ability) and secondly by the fact that page 43 for general feats says the following:

Quote:
At each of these levels, you can select any general feat (including skill feats) as long as your character qualifies for it.

And for class feats they gate you with:

Quote:
At every level that you gain a(n) ________ feat, you can select one of the following feats. You must satisfy any prerequisites before selecting a(n) ________ feat.

And finally for skill feats their preclusion is:

Quote:
You must be trained or better in the corresponding skill to select a skill feat.

TL;DR - The book doesn't seem to adequately tell the player they can't and furthermore suggests they can


New thought to add to this: this means players can take on multiple animal companions or familiars and that doesn't strike me as particularly game-breaking due to the way the action economy plays out (granted I'm not bothering to do an analysis on hit chance and therefore DPR so, idk, sue me) but I think the idea of it is humorous at the very least, especially since animal companions are scaled by player level and not when the feat was taken. Multiple familiars would be useless by RAW though so RIP that idea.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This also means you can take Power Attack twice, or Toughness, or Reach Spell.

And that's just ridiculous.

If I have two instances of Toughness, do I gain double the HP?

If I have two instances of Reach Spell, can I apply both to the same (one-action) spell for even more range?

If I have two instances of Power Attack, what benefit does that give me?

As soon as you start digging at interpreting the rules that way, you end up in a quagmire of "but no one would do that, because it would be a waste of a feat" and the only sane option is that you can't take feats twice by default.


In order of description:
Yes you would gain the full HP value again, but the +1 conditional bonus to recovery saves wouldn't stack.

No, the text refers only to the normal range of the spell, metamagic feats with the same trigger can't apply to the same spell, and you would've been able to double up with just the one feat if the RAW was bad here anyways.

Power attack or any of the feats that are literally just actions are functionally useless when taken twice, especially reactions and two action feats. I thought about whether it would let you take things explicitly stated as usable once per turn but the RAW there is quite clear.

It's not insanity, it's the literal interpretation of the rules, much like an error in the programming of a video game this can lead to weirdness and exploits and it ought be fixed with patch notes/errata. It's also not useless as I for one would happily take the general feat Adopted Ancestry more than once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, let me simply this:

You have two feats listed in the book like this:

Quote:

Feat A

Does stuff
Special: You may take this feat more than once

Feat B
Does different stuff

Which feat can you take twice?


Kerx wrote:
New thought to add to this: this means players can take on multiple animal companions or familiars and that doesn't strike me as particularly game-breaking due to the way the action economy plays out (granted I'm not bothering to do an analysis on hit chance and therefore DPR so, idk, sue me) but I think the idea of it is humorous at the very least, especially since animal companions are scaled by player level and not when the feat was taken. Multiple familiars would be useless by RAW though so RIP that idea.

You cannot have multiple Animal Companions or Familiars :

Pathfinder (2e) Playtest Rulebook, p.284 wrote:

Animal Companions

... You can have only a single animal companion.
Pathfinder (2e) Playtest Rulebook, p.287 wrote:

Familiars

... You can’t have more than one familiar.


Alright, this isn't going anywhere. Ty BENSLAYER

Pg 8 fails to deny the player the right to take feats multiple times on the grounds that the word "usually" predicating the statement creates the induction that it is not always the case that the special heading has been included in feats that can be taken multiple times.

All feat types contain rules text which grant the player the ability to take any feat which they qualify for.

No feat types contain text which disqualify the player from taking feats on the basis that they have taken those feats.

The logically following conclusion is that as it is an expressly granted privilege of the player to take any feat for which they qualify and as a player qualifies for feats they've already taken, they are capable of taking such feats.

This is as far as I'm willing to take this. Insanity was brought up, definition thereof would be me continuing this discussion when I've nothing to genuinely add. Shoot down any of the premises and I'll pay attention


Kerx wrote:
Pg 8 fails to deny the player the right to take feats multiple times on the grounds that the word "usually" predicating the statement creates the induction that it is not always the case that the special heading has been included in feats that can be taken multiple times.

I answered this already.

Draco18s wrote:


*For example, archetypes:
Quote:

Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you

have gained two other feats from the _____ archetype.


Likewise, I've already provided all the instances in which the rulebook grants the player the ability to take feats for which they qualify when dictated by their class. Player's don't stop being qualified for feats once they possess those feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kerx wrote:

Pg 8 fails to deny the player the right to take feats multiple times on the grounds that the word "usually" predicating the statement creates the induction that it is not always the case that the special heading has been included in feats that can be taken multiple times.

Pathfinder isn't a deny-based ruleset, it's an allow-based ruleset.


Kerx wrote:
Likewise, I've already provided all the instances in which the rulebook grants the player the ability to take feats for which they qualify when dictated by their class. Player's don't stop being qualified for feats once they possess those feats.

Then why have "special: this feat can be taken more than once" at all?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can understand the situation Kerx is trying to explain. Yes by logic one wouldn't take a feat they have already taken unless it is expressly allowed. However due to the word usually the rule which should prevent someone from taking a feat which is not expressly allowed is more of a guideline which a player trying to word-game their dm could potentially get away with.

Since pf2 has been in my opinion trying to lay down solid rules so that dm interpretation of the rules is less often required the word usually should be stricken from the rule that talks about special section and the special section should be applied to any feat which can be taken multiple times. I believe all such feats already have the section, however I am not looking at the book right now so I may be wrong. From my understanding this is not so much a question of can we do this so much as by logic we shouldn't be able to. However the rule does not 100% back up the logic leaving a back door that some exploiting player could try to argue his way through.

In the interest of saving future dms from such players trying to take feats like toughness or specialty crafting (I think) multiple times and any other feat that might come out in the future the unnecessary word usually should not exist. If the devs have a reason to keep the word it should be stated in what case the special section is not the only way a feat can be taken multiple times. As specific rules always trump general so the word usually is not needed as a class or feat that grants additional feat acquisition past taking for the first time would trump the special section rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd just slap my player real solid and be done with it...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I mean, I can easily see someone wanting to take "Fleet" multiple times. And in Pathfinder (current edition) you can take it more than once.

I think you should be able to take "Fleet" more than once, and it doesn't need the "Special"-declaration, as it's effect is quite easy to understand.

Draco18s wrote:
Then why have "special: this feat can be taken more than once" at all?

I think in the current playtest rulebook all instances of the "Special You can select this feat..." declaration also define special circumstances when selecting the feat more than once (you have to select a different domain/weapon/Lore/class feat...), which would not be necessary for feats like "Fleet" (simple increase), "Toughness" (more hp, circumstance bonuses don't stack), "Power Attack" (You can only do one 2-action-activity per round) or so.


Franz Lunzer wrote:

I mean, I can easily see someone wanting to take "Fleet" multiple times. And in Pathfinder (current edition) you can take it more than once.

I think you should be able to take "Fleet" more than once, and it doesn't need the "Special"-declaration, as it's effect is quite easy to understand.

Draco18s wrote:
Then why have "special: this feat can be taken more than once" at all?
I think in the current playtest rulebook all instances of the "Special You can select this feat..." declaration also define special circumstances when selecting the feat more than once (you have to select a different domain/weapon/Lore/class feat...), which would not be necessary for feats like "Fleet" (simple increase), "Toughness" (more hp, circumstance bonuses don't stack), "Power Attack" (You can only do one 2-action-activity per round) or so.

Note that the PF1 feat description for Fleet includes:

Quote:
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. The effects stack.

That same language is missing from the PF2 version.

In addition the cleric domain feats also say "special: this feat can be selected more than once" and says that when you do you pick a domain you don't already have (as in: duh, why else would you select this feat again?)

Additional Lore has the same language:

Quote:
You can select this feat more than once, choosing a new subcategory of Lore each time and gaining the listed skill increases to that Lore.

Do you really need to be told that you have to select a new subcategory every time?

Or Multilingual? The effects of the feat are "learn two new languages." Special text? "You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, you learn two new languages." GASP, YOU DON'T SAY. Man, if only I knew how it stacked with itself without that text...

How about Skill Training?

Quote:

You become trained in the skill of your choice.

Special You can select this feat multiple times

MAN, I SURE HOPE I CAN SELECT A SKILL I'M ALREADY TRAINED IN. Oh the special rules say I can't, shucks.

Quote:
, choosing a new skill to become trained in each time.


First things first; everything is chill my guy, hand off the shift key, we're all alright. No-one's trying to spice on anyone here.
I would recommend you divest yourself from pathfinder 1st for all discussion of pathfinder playtest. Personally I try to think of it as just as foreign as starfinder, there's no carry over for rules as far as I know.
Last, every special section you cited allows the player a selection between a set of several options when taking the feat again, I think it's natural to state what those options are.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Kerx wrote:
Likewise, I've already provided all the instances in which the rulebook grants the player the ability to take feats for which they qualify when dictated by their class. Player's don't stop being qualified for feats once they possess those feats.
Then why have "special: this feat can be taken more than once" at all?

That is, indeed, the question we are trying to figure out.

Either
a) the intent is that, in general, feats can be taken more than once (in which case the "special" text is unnecessary and can be removed), or
b) the intent is that, in general, feats cannot be taken more than once (in which case the rulebook should say so).

As written, I think Kerx is onto something. From just reading the rules, nowhere does it state that taking a feat disqualifies you from taking the same feat again later. Unless we are missing something.


Ok, so, what happens when you select the following feats a second time?

Alchemical Crafting
Ancestral Paragon
Fleet
Hefty Hauler
Incredible Initiative
Inventor
Powerful Leap (is there a limit? what if I take it 10 times? Am I allowed to jump 60 feet, twice as far (or better?) than my move speed?)
Remarkable Ressonance
Quiet Allies
Snare Crafting
Specialty Crafting
Wall Jump

Note that some of them require a selection to be made and do not have a "must be different" special text. Others have some numerical effect and lack "the effects stack" special text.


When you take it a second time:
Alchemical Crafting - Gives you formulas for four common lvl 1 alchemical items
Ancestral Paragon - "You gain a level-1 ancestry feat."
Fleet - Your speed increases by 5 feet
Hefty Hauler - "Increase your maximum and encumbered Bulk limits by 2."
Incredible Initiative - Nothing, circumstance bonuses don't stack
Inventor - Nothing. There's a lot of these types of things, could've picked Pickpocket, Natural Medicine, Planar Survival, etc. Feats like this are most of why this probably needs errata to me.
Powerful Leap - "you increase the distance you can jump horizontally by 5 feet." To answer the attached question "You can’t Leap farther than your Speed." - Long Jump action
Remarkable Resonance - "Increase your maximum Resonance Points by 2."
Quiet Allies - "While an ally is within 30 feet of you, their check penalty to Stealth checks from armor is reduced by 2" Though I could see an argument here dependent on whether you see having two quiet allies as being "any other ability that reduces check penalties from armor"
Snare Crafting - "you gain the formulas for four common snares"
Specialty Crafting - "Select one of the specialties listed below; you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on Crafting checks to Craft items of that type." Circumstance bonuses don't stack so if you double dip into one thing it'd be useless
Wall Jump - Nothing.

I think there might be another question regarding non-typal bonuses (for a lot of these readings). I can't find anything in the rulebook discussing them. If anyone can, big ups. That'd be really helpful for this tangent.


Kerx wrote:
To answer the attached question "You can’t Leap farther than your Speed." - Long Jump action

Ah, but we're not using Long Jump, we're using Leap.

Quote:
You take a careful but short jump. You can Leap up to 10 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 15 feet, or up to 15 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 30 feet. You land in the space where your Leap ends (meaning you can typically clear a 5-foot gap if your Speed is between 15 feet and 30 feet, or a 10-foot gap if your Speed is 30 feet or more).

Powerful LEAP adds to this distance and the action lists no maximum.

And besides...are you SURE the distance added by this feat stacks?

Kerx wrote:
Specialty Crafting - "Select one of the specialties listed below; you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on Crafting checks to Craft items of that type." Circumstance bonuses don't stack so if you double dip into one thing it'd be useless

What about selecting a different specialization? Are you allowed to do that? There's no special text saying that that's what you do.

Quote:
Quiet Allies - "While an ally is within 30 feet of you, their check penalty to Stealth checks from armor is reduced by 2" Though I could see an argument here dependent on whether you see having two quiet allies as being "any other ability that reduces check penalties from armor"

There's no special text telling us how to apply a second copy. We should either be able to infer this (or we aren't allowed to take feats twice by default). But we can't infer this.

"Any other ability" clearly doesn't apply, because it's the same ability. Nor does the "Another character" apply because it's the same character.

But letting it stack because you have it twice is ridiculous.

Quote:
the rest of them

They're numerical and the only thing we can really say about them is:

Are you SURE the value stacks?

PF1 has a notion of a "feat bonus" and feat bonuses never stacked, unless explicitly called out. PF2 has fewer and fewer bonus types (there's like, two now) and everything that stacks has been explicitly called out (stat boosts explicitly stack, item bonuses explicitly stack with things that are not item bonuses, etc).

I'll also break this down once more:

Quote:
Special Any special qualities of the rule are explained in this section. Usually the special section appears in a feat you can select more than once, and explains what happens when you do.

The correct deconstruction of this sentence is:

Usually the special section appears when:
- You can select a feat more than once.
- But it may appear other times.

And is not:

Usually when you can select a feat more than once:
- The special section appears.
- But may not always.


Powerful Leap - I'm not sure we can say that doesn't apply. Seems to me there are a lot of rulings that are awkwardly placed throughout the book (like pg 8's example text and not, you know, in the rules text for feats), a simple statement like seems to me to be widely applicable. But because I want to enjoy this though then yeah, I suppose if jumping 5 feet more than your speed (on the presumption it never increases) with one action is really what you want to do with 4 of your character's 5 default general feats from progression nothing's stopping you (@ lvl 15 for non-human non-ancestry jackers), parkour campaign ready my guy, leap those rooftops!

Specialty Crafting - "Select one of the specialties listed below" seems pretty clear, you should be able to pick any of them.

Quiet Allies - What I was attempting to allude to there is that the instances themselves could arguably be seen as different abilities and since I'm unaware of a robust definition for "ability" in the CRB I'm saying it's a possibility, not definitive. Honestly no armor penalty to stealth isn't that heinous. We're all still rolling dice and I get the feeling someone messes up 90%, at least that's my brief experience so far as party rogue with a group of dead men walking go-getters by my side.

Bonuses - They also haven't said anything about non-typal bonuses. Would you say fleet and nimble don't stack? If so why is Elf Step a feat in the 1.4 errata? The prerequisite is a 40ft move so only Elven Monks are eligible by the same logic. I'll grant it could be a misprint (as could the very text we're discussing), lord knows there's no reason you should need the bard dedication feat to take sorcerer spellcasting (that's the multiclassing archetype update, also see CRB page 16's abbreviation for lawful neutral).

You haven't yet said anything that makes me think I've misunderstood you somehow, fairly sure i'm looking at the right one of your proverbial pages. I understand you may not think it proper (RAI) but I'm afraid to the best of my knowledge and seemingly a few others it is the proper literal deconstruction of the phrase in English (RAW).

Way I believe it ought be worded if it helps: "The Special section appears in any feat you can select more than once, and explains what happens when you do"

Edited: made it more digestible, attempted to clarify that I understand opposing view


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The text at the bottom of the left column of page 8 comes close:

"Special Any special qualities of the rule are explained in this section. Usually the special section appears in a feat you can select more than once, and explains what happens when you do."

What seems to be lacking is a general statement that you cannot take a feat more than once unless it has a special section saying that you can. For many feats, taking a feat a second time would do nothing, but that is not necessarily true of all such feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the rules say your character absolutely cannot craft a machine gun at level 1 and kill all the monsters.
Dude, it's simple. Some feats specifically say they can be taken more than once. If it doesn't say that, it can be reasonably inferred that they can't. You are being purposefully obtuse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's worth noting, if nothing else to avoid gamers who don't have a strong proficiency in English making a similar mistake, and to avoid confusion among new gamers. Personally, I ascribe to the "common sense and inference says you can't take a feat more than once by default" school, myself.


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
I don't think the rules say your character absolutely cannot craft a machine gun at level 1 and kill all the monsters.

I understand that this is supposed to be ridiculous but I just can't stop the RAW: Items not listed are level 0; machine gun is level 0. Proficiency equal to item quality; trained quaility machine gun OK. You have the formula; RIP machine gun. Appropriate tools and/or workshop; can't make those either, no formula. Raw materials; good there. If you can get your hands on the formula for that inevitably homebrew (no stats by RAW) item, yeah. Go hog wild your DM is probably the same one from the "Summoner geeks" skit (apologies for the old reference it probably hasn't aged well at all).

Quote:
You are being purposefully obtuse.

I'm being purposefully (and I guess abrasively to some) literal. Players gonna cheese, not all of them, but one is too many. If we, through this discussion, make it so no-one ever feels like they can make this valid argument at any table I'll be thrilled because it means this technicality has been purged and nobody has to have this weird line of nueron firings or look at page 8 example text of all places for a ruling on feats, they could've made <Repeatable- Indicates a feat you can take multiple times> a tag as well, there's a lot of fixes. Honestly I think it's probably isn't intended as well (much like an aforementioned multiclass typo that also probably needs errata even though we can all guess the intent) but that's not the question. The question is "how is it written?" Because the answer to that is always "the way it should be played" that's RAW. That's what playtesting, betas, alphas and all the other permutations of unfinished products are supposed to be about, I'm just out here submitting a bug report, a lack of ruling intentionality.

I kind of wanted a fun hypothetical on some level while we wait for a fix but people just seem so shockingly adamant I'm wrong in spite of a deductively valid proof that I don't think we get to have the follow up meme build fun discussion I hoped for a week ago.

Edit: mobile typos


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean.. I do absolutely agree with you that it is something worth addressing for the final book printing so that it is not something people have to research. A simple sentence at the front of the feats chapter would suffice.
"Unless otherwise stated, a feat may only be taken once."
I feel it's basically pretty clear you can't. But one printed sentence would save lots of headaches.
It's like that with a lot of things. The more we bring up now, the less errata has to be printed later.


Writing this in 2020, it seems unavoidable that they failed to expressly say "you cannot take a feat more than once unless expressly allowed".

You can't say they don't have to say this. PF2 is a very rules-bound game engine. The rest of the rules doesn't work this way, so why should we settle for it here?

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells / Taking almost any feat multiple times All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells